YT YouTube2Text

YouTube2Text → Transcripts → Guestsplaining 041: Arguing Abortion with Dr. Christopher Kaczor

Guestsplaining 041: Arguing Abortion with Dr. Christopher Kaczor — Transcript

by Godsplaining | Catholic Podcast · 6,456 words · 920 segments · language en · Watch on YouTube

Open in transcriber Summarize with AI Download SRT/VTT

Full transcript

0:00foreign
0:00[Music]
0:06this is Father Gregory Pine
0:08and this is Father bonamentry Chapman
0:10and welcome to God's planning thanks to
0:12all those who support us if you enjoyed
0:14the show please consider making a
0:15monthly donation on patreon be sure to
0:17like And subscribe to God's planning
0:19wherever you listen to your podcasts
0:21so on this episode of guest blending
0:23we're very delighted to be joined by
0:25Professor Kaiser Professor Christopher
0:26kaser who's coming to us from loyal and
0:28Marymount University in Southern
0:30California so thanks so much for joining
0:32us on the show
0:33my pleasure
0:34uh so many of our listeners will know of
0:37your work uh through various
0:39Publications uh also through work that
0:41you've done with the domestic Institute
0:43that's where we first met at a lecture
0:44you gave at the University of South
0:45Carolina and then at the student
0:47leadership conference it was held in
0:49Estes Park Colorado a couple years back
0:51but for those who don't know you would
0:53you just say a word about who you are
0:54what you do and uh maybe why it matters
0:58sure yeah uh I'm a professor a
1:00philosophy and chair of the philosophy
1:02department at Loyola Marymount in Los
1:04Angeles and I also work with Bishop
1:06Robert Barron as the Saint Thomas
1:08Aquinas fellow for the word on fire
1:11Institute and uh this fall my third
1:14edition of my book the ethics of
1:15abortion came out so I'm happy that that
1:18is arrived after uh the decision of
1:21Dobbs to overturn Roe versus Wade so I
1:23think this issue is even more important
1:26in a way than it was before but I also
1:29have interests outside of bioethics so
1:31I've written about the intersection of
1:34positive psychology and spirituality and
1:38I've written about the virtues
1:39especially Aquinas on the virtues and uh
1:42in my free time I like to do Jiu Jitsu
1:45so incredible yeah that's that about
1:47covers it I guess this episode changed
1:50now into a demonstration of Jiu Jitsu so
1:52we're going to not talk about abortion
1:54at all but just watch that
1:56um well we can do that I it might be a
1:58little bit hard since you have such a
1:59good distance right now I'm not sure if
2:01uh if I'll be able to really do any of
2:03my moves on you but that's that's true
2:05you'll have to do it spiritually
2:07um well I was thinking father Gregory we
2:09I think that you've met him before
2:10because we we've met father kazor in
2:14print which is kind of like meeting a
2:15person uh by reading his book on
2:17proportionalism in our in in our uh what
2:21is it uh uh morals one I think of course
2:24at the house of studies and then he came
2:27and gave a talk you get here he's in
2:29here uh you gave a talk to us on habits
2:32uh at one of the domestic intermistic
2:34circles or something so you've been
2:35right yeah that's right no I remember
2:38that I remember that although you called
2:39me Father caser uh that's kind of a
2:42spiritual upgrade I'm afraid I'm just a
2:43Layman
2:44well you know
2:46I do have kids so I guess I am a father
2:49biologically but um normally only my
2:52kids addressed me as father but I mean
2:54if you feel comfortable with that I
2:55guess I could go with that oh sorry
2:57about that yeah well it's you know
2:58Francis we call Holy Father Francis so
3:01um he uh even though he was only a
3:02deacon but maybe there's maybe this is
3:04the the whatever no doctor it's a
3:07pleasure this will be this will be our
3:08first Act of Jiu Jitsu because since the
3:11sacred scripture said call no man father
3:13we felt somewhat uncomfortable by being
3:15called father and so we just turned it
3:17on its head uh all right and you did too
3:20but it felt right
3:21um
3:22okay so to start the conversation then
3:25uh this episode is coming out right
3:27around the anniversary of the Roe v Wade
3:29decision and folks in the United States
3:30many are accustomed to go to Washington
3:32DC for the March for Life uh so they
3:34kind of have this time in their mind as
3:36a time to be a specialty solicitous for
3:38the good of pregnant women and for their
3:40children uh whether it be by prayer
3:41fasting demonstration
3:43um but yeah we find ourselves in a
3:45strange post-row world with the dots
3:48decision as you mentioned and so maybe
3:50we can start with that like what is the
3:51place of continued argumentation about
3:54abortion in the present setting because
3:56I I think a lot of people are kind of
3:58exhausted with the culture war and maybe
4:00they take Dobbs as an occasion to Exhale
4:02but you still publish the Third Edition
4:04of this book so it seems like the
4:06conversation is ongoing maybe you could
4:08just kind of give us a little bit of the
4:10lay of the land as things have taken
4:11shape in this last year
4:13well I think that with the decision of
4:16the court in Dobbs the issue of abortion
4:18is much more in the public mind and in
4:20the public conversation so both inside
4:23the church and outside the church at
4:24least in the United States there is
4:27ongoing conversations about this so the
4:29magazine common wheel actually came out
4:31with a whole uh section of their issue
4:33dedicated to discussing Dobbs and so I
4:37think in a way now more than ever it's
4:39important to think clearly about this
4:41issue think compassionately about this
4:43issue and try to reason with our fellow
4:47citizens about how to move forward
4:48towards a more just and compassionate
4:51Society
4:53yeah I think it's interesting you you we
4:56think about since Dobbs is here now it's
4:58kind of settled or that we can again
5:00breathe easy but in some ways this is as
5:02you say the more important one because
5:04now people are are forced to have this
5:05discussion explicitly because of states
5:08and because of the legislation and all
5:10this so that in a way the arguments are
5:12going to become even more heated I
5:13suspect uh and instead of having heat we
5:16want light on this and your book which
5:18uh you know we're going to plug here
5:19again of course the Third Edition is
5:21spectacular and people think this might
5:22it is academic in a sense but it's it's
5:25very readable and it in one in sense you
5:29you do a good job of putting together
5:30all of the objections in a sense they're
5:33they're almost no objections I can think
5:34of Orson that aren't dealt with in this
5:36book and yet it's still a narrative that
5:39has an argument about it so what do you
5:42what do you see as the audience for the
5:44book and how can they how can they use
5:45this this book the uh the ethics of
5:47abortion
5:48yeah I would say the audience is any
5:51intelligent person of Goodwill I have
5:54written the book to take into account
5:56all the very best and the most prominent
5:59arguments in favor of abortion and I try
6:01to do my best to really investigate this
6:05issue extensively this book took uh you
6:08know many years to write actually and
6:09now in its Third Edition I've I've
6:11continued my research to really take
6:14into account all the very strongest
6:16arguments that are given given in favor
6:18of abortion and so I've written it too I
6:21hope in a way that non-scholers can read
6:23so really any intelligent person I think
6:25I hope can pick up the book and follow
6:28the arguments of the book so my hope is
6:31that it does contribute light to the
6:33discussion what I've tried to do in the
6:35book is to be very fair to those with
6:38whom I disagree to not engage in straw
6:41man arguments where you put forward a
6:43version of their view that's just
6:44completely ridiculous but rather to
6:47present a steel man argument and and so
6:49in a way I've been inspired by the work
6:51of Aquinas who as you know in the
6:53objections to his own views tries to put
6:55forward a very strong version of those
6:57views and so that's what I've done in
6:58this book is look at all the uh
7:01literature on abortion and the strongest
7:04views in favor of abortion and then to
7:07try to reason about those views in such
7:10a way I hope that will be understandable
7:12and persuasive to those that disagree
7:18so just seizing on a couple of things
7:20that you said you said that it's
7:21addressed to people of good will you
7:23said you wanted to take the strongest
7:25arguments that you take seriously the
7:26arguments of those who would give
7:28contrary positions so I've noticed that
7:31like in the book that your approach is
7:33is broadly speaking ironic in the sense
7:35that like you said you want to do it
7:36fairly or you want to be fair to your
7:39opponents if we can speak of them in
7:40those terms but then also you you don't
7:43have a lot of patience for bad
7:45argumentation and justly so in the sense
7:47that you're willing to identify bad
7:48argumentation as bad argumentation and
7:51I'm thinking here of Saint Thomas who
7:52you cited so he does what you describe
7:55in the objections that he entertains but
7:58you'll find him at the end of a couple
7:59of treatises speaking somewhat sternly
8:02to those who will speak contrary to
8:05excellent Goods I'm thinking here
8:06especially of uh religious life at the
8:09end of two of his treatises that concern
8:11the religious life he says basically
8:12don't whisper in the corners come out
8:14into the Public Square and debate me
8:15because if you can only gain purchase on
8:17the minds of the Young by doing so you
8:20know in fell form then that's that's
8:23done not with Goodwill that's done with
8:25malicious intent so maybe just as a way
8:28to focus this consideration
8:29what would you say about the exercise of
8:31Tolerance in these types of debates
8:33because we want to tolerate certain
8:35things but we don't want to tolerate
8:36other things so I don't know if thoughts
8:38along those lines inform your approach
8:39but if so something along that
8:42I I guess what I what I do is draw a
8:45distinction between tolerating uh
8:47individuals and people on the one hand
8:49and tolerating false views on the other
8:52hand and I think those really are
8:54distinct so in my view we should always
8:55respect and even go beyond Toleration
8:58even love those with whom we interact
9:01and those could be people that we
9:03interact with in terms of debate and
9:05argument but also just personally I mean
9:07in our everyday life I think we should
9:08really try to show real love for
9:10everyone because after all from a
9:13theological perspective everyone is made
9:15in God's image and everyone is also
9:16called to communion with God on the
9:19other hand it isn't real love for others
9:23to uh put forward or let them
9:27is not real love not to seek the truth
9:29and conversation in conversation with
9:31others so if we're having a conversation
9:34that's aimed at greater Insight it's an
9:37act of love not of intolerance to help
9:40someone try to gain greater insight and
9:43that's true for both sides in other
9:44words I feel that I have much to learn
9:47about the ethics of abortion even though
9:49I've written about it and I feel I have
9:52much to learn about a lot so it can be
9:53the case that when I'm talking with
9:54someone with whom I disagree that I
9:56really do gain greater insight into
9:59whatever it is that we're talking about
10:00so I think of it is kind of a two-way
10:03two-way street and so a real
10:05conversation a conversation among those
10:07that have good will for each other is
10:09both uh very loving in the sense of
10:12respect is shown to everyone but also is
10:15genuinely seeking the truth and I think
10:17of these things as not in opposition as
10:20if well either you're loving or you're
10:21seeking the truth with others in fact if
10:23you really love others it seems to me
10:25that you would want to seek the truth
10:27with it you seek the truth for yourself
10:29you seek the truth for them because the
10:31truth is a good that isn't diminished
10:33when you divide it and the truth is a
10:36good that every human person needs in
10:38order to find real happiness in order to
10:40find real fulfillment and so I think
10:42seeking the truth and respecting persons
10:44really go hand at hand
10:46yeah I think the one of the nice Parts
10:47about this about this book and your
10:49account if other people listen to you
10:50they can find you in line is there is
10:52this unified Vision that arguing for the
10:55ethics abortion isn't just one piece
10:58it's a part of the bigger bigger
11:01understanding orientation to the people
11:02as having dignity and this is just an
11:04aspect of that and it's about seeking
11:06truth and having conversation tolerance
11:08I think those are beautiful we're in a
11:10polarized Society it seems like I'm sure
11:12they said this 100 years ago too in
11:131860s too but it seems like we're
11:16whatever the case whether it was before
11:17or not we're still very polarized and
11:20also I think we're becoming fragmented
11:23and walled off from each other so in
11:25today for instance if you want to
11:27receive your news you might receive it
11:29from if you're Progressive from CNN or
11:31if you're a conservative you might
11:32receive in Fox News you can in a sense
11:34Silo yourself off from the others around
11:37you in the Civic citizens your
11:39co-citizens but
11:41and you might think that now we've got
11:43to talk about abortion people might say
11:45well
11:46you know we're just so different it's a
11:49fundamental absolute presupposition you
11:51know you believe in pro-life I'm
11:53pro-choice and you know these are just
11:55these are really deep fundamental issues
11:58either because they're political and
11:59therefore they're involved some personal
12:01like aesthetic choice or something or
12:03because life is just too metaphysical
12:05it's too much metaphysics it's you we
12:07couldn't possibly come to a a position
12:10on this through argumentation
12:12um so why don't we just realize that we
12:14have two different positions and that we
12:17just learned to get along with each
12:18other and that's what's really at stake
12:20and then it becomes a matter of
12:21compromise I take it of course in this
12:22book is that you don't think it's a
12:24matter of just getting along and we
12:25should just say well I can't tell if the
12:27soul is the form of the body or it's not
12:29the form of the body so we'll just kind
12:30of get along with each other but what is
12:33your response to people who say you know
12:34these arguments they just don't go
12:36anywhere
12:37um we're too polarized these are
12:39fundamental presuppositions that people
12:41have so it's not arguments won't do
12:44anything for that how do you respond on
12:46to someone in that kind of situation
12:48well I think arguments won't do anything
12:51if someone's close-minded and someone's
12:52not a person of Goodwill but if someone
12:55is open-minded and a person of Good Will
12:57I'm not sure how that person could say
12:59well I'm unopen to gaining new insights
13:02I'm closed to the possibility that I
13:05might be wrong I'm unwilling to even
13:07consider alternative points of view well
13:09if someone says that to me then yeah I
13:11wouldn't bother speaking with that
13:12person because they just told me they
13:14don't want to talk and they're not open
13:15to anything that anyone else has to say
13:17and they think apparently they're
13:18infallible and that they have all truth
13:21well okay I guess I guess we at that
13:23point do have to not talk anymore but I
13:26think for everybody else which is I
13:28think about 99 of people you really can
13:30talk about this in a reasonable way so
13:33here's one way to move forward
13:34every reasonable person I hope would
13:37agree that it's wrong to kill you and me
13:39right now so if someone were to you know
13:42burst into the room right now and you
13:44know stab us to death I think I hope
13:46everyone of Goodwill would agree that is
13:48totally wrong
13:49now why is it wrong well there's a great
13:52uh atheist philosopher named Don Marquis
13:55and he put forward this account of why
13:57killing you and me right now would be
13:59wrong if someone bursts in the room and
14:01kills us now that individual is not
14:04taking away our past
14:06so I'll still have the good memories uh
14:08or I'll still have enjoyed the you know
14:10friendships that I made before and the
14:12knowledge that I gained before and all
14:14the good things that I enjoyed yesterday
14:15and last week and last month you know he
14:17can't take those away but what would
14:19happen if someone kills me right now or
14:21kills you is I would be deprived of the
14:24chance of enjoying Goods in the future
14:26so I would not make new friends I would
14:29not gain new insights I would not have
14:31new people that I could love and be left
14:33by so all those goods that I had a
14:35chance to have in the future are all
14:37taken away
14:38now that same principle applies to
14:40killing a newborn baby
14:42if you kill a newborn baby you're
14:44depriving her of all her chance to enjoy
14:47the goods of life she's not going to
14:49make friends she's not going to learn
14:50new things she's not going to see
14:52beautiful sunsets Etc
14:54but the very same principle also applies
14:56to killing a human being prior to birth
14:58if you kill her prior to her birth then
15:02she is deprived of again the chance to
15:04make new friends the chance to learn new
15:07things the chance to see beautiful
15:08sunsets Etc
15:09so the very same reason that it's wrong
15:11to kill you or me right now is a reason
15:14to think that it's wrong to kill a
15:16newborn baby and a reason to think it's
15:18wrong to kill a prenatal human being so
15:21these principles that I'm applying uh
15:23referring to in this book these are not
15:25theological principles I'm not making an
15:27argument that you know the Bible says
15:29that you know thou shall not kill or an
15:32argument like uh Pope John Paul II
15:35strongly condemned abortion in
15:37Evangelion Vitae it is true that he did
15:40do that but in this book what I'm doing
15:41is appealing to principles that I hope
15:43any person of Good Will could understand
15:46and so I'm hoping to move the
15:48conversations forward among those people
15:50that have uh Goodwill
15:53so you reference in your acknowledgments
15:56one theorist or one academic who
16:00responded with like 21 pages of single
16:02space notes kind of precising your
16:04arguments or reacting to your arguments
16:05or encouraging you to whatever Advance
16:08your arguments and this that or the
16:09other way
16:10um which I think is an excellent
16:12testimony of of Goodwill
16:14um and I guess like when I'm thinking
16:16about like somebody like this who's
16:18reacting to your book I imagine that
16:20they approach it from a very different
16:21Vantage we had a professor at the house
16:23of studies who spoke about the curse of
16:25knowledge like once you know a thing you
16:26can't unknow a thing and so I can't
16:28unknow uh what I know or what I love
16:32when it comes to this particular issue
16:33and reading your book and so as a result
16:35in part I find it very convincing but I
16:38also wonder about the moral intuitions
16:40of those who don't agree and then as a
16:42result I wonder about the purchase of
16:44moral intuitions in this type of
16:45argumentation
16:47um I think that you know because of
16:49other conversations specifically I'm
16:51thinking right now philosophy of mind uh
16:53conversations people say well if you do
16:55and then describe some crazy situation
16:57it's obvious that and then draw some
16:59wild conclusion I've begun to lose a
17:01little bit of faith in moral intuitions
17:04um but you use them it seems to me to
17:06good effect so maybe the question would
17:07be like what type of lifting do you
17:09think moral intuitions can do and what
17:11type of lifting can they not do
17:12specifically in the context of a book
17:14addressed to people of Goodwill
17:16well in this book what I try to do is
17:19look at all the most powerful Arguments
17:22for abortion and many of those arguments
17:24appeal to you're right bizarre examples
17:26so you have a kitten or that is injected
17:29with a serum and then the kitten can
17:31talk or you're hooked up to a violinist
17:33or there are people seeds that fly in
17:36your window I mean all these kind of
17:37really bizarre arguments and my basic
17:40view about those bizarre examples is
17:42that the more bizarre it is the less
17:44likely it is going to track anything
17:47like a normal intuition I mean if the
17:49example is completely weird we're not
17:51going to have normal everyday intuitions
17:53about it so I don't think that's super
17:56useful so what I try to do for the most
17:58part is even though I talk about those
18:00examples I try to ground my own work in
18:04real life uh realistic cases and
18:07realistic examples so like for instance
18:10when we just talked about
18:12uh the argument that it's wrong to
18:14deprive an individual of their chance
18:16for the goods of life
18:18um you notice that that is a realistic
18:21kind of example I mean people do get
18:22murdered and the question is well why is
18:24murdering somebody wrong so that's not a
18:26you know bizarre talking kitten kind of
18:29example that's a very much an everyday
18:30example so for the most part in the book
18:32I try not to appeal to a fantastic
18:34science fiction bizarre uh you know
18:37totally unlikely kinds of cases but
18:39rather to cases that actually could take
18:41place and so I think for that reason
18:44um the book and I think certainly the
18:46pro-life view does not need to rely on
18:49and does not in fact rely on bizarre uh
18:52you know science fiction sorts of cases
18:54and I think that's a strength of the
18:56pro-life View
18:57I think yeah I want to follow on this
18:59and father gregories because Professor
19:01case right you're approach in this book
19:02is not only about dealing with those
19:04arguments but again working from you
19:06could say a common morality moral
19:09tuitions in this sense that
19:12um we'll put this way in the early 20s
19:14in the 20th century uh PF Strauss and
19:16wrote a book on called individuals and
19:18he he split metaphysics between
19:21descriptive metaphysics and revisionary
19:23metaphysics and he put Aristotle and
19:26Kant as being descriptive metaphysical
19:27just describing what we know about
19:30reality you're not trying to change it
19:31revisionary metaphysics is actually
19:34we're trying to change what we know
19:35about what we account for reality so
19:37like Descartes for instance um this is
19:39something and that was I I thought about
19:40this distinction when you were when you
19:43were when I was reading your book
19:44because you seem to be doing descriptive
19:46ethics in a way in in that you're
19:48working from hey here's what we know
19:50about our ethical judgments here's where
19:53we have a basic common reality we all
19:54agree that you can't just kill me right
19:57now you know and no matter and so if
19:59anything leads to that being the case
20:00we're going to have to reject that as
20:02that we're just not going to go down the
20:03route you could and I think so much of
20:05the other side oftentimes the other side
20:07is on this revisionary side and says
20:10look
20:11I don't trust common morality why would
20:13I trust common reality if it turns out
20:15by my best reasoning through weird cases
20:17that I can kill you then I'm just gonna
20:19throw away the common reality and I
20:21think we all think that's Bonkers but
20:24um it is true that sometimes common
20:27morality whatever we mean by that or at
20:30least you could say come reality might
20:31get things wrong you make the case very
20:34emphatically that slavery would be an
20:37example of this and that for instance
20:39this is akin to an abortion argument
20:42because slavery is a matter of saying it
20:44might be human beings but they're not
20:45persons or something like this so if
20:47someone says yeah you're doing a lot of
20:49descriptive just our Common Sense
20:51judgments what everyone kind of agrees
20:52on but we know that immorals matters
20:57oftentimes we we get it wrong so why why
21:01not really trust the weird arguments or
21:03just different arguments as opposed to
21:05starting with this common consensus what
21:07do you what do you think about that
21:09well I do agree that our common
21:13intuitions about moral issues can be
21:16wrong and that we can think oh this is
21:18perfectly fine just because of my
21:20culture does it or look everyone's doing
21:22such and such so it must be fine and so
21:24I would agree with you that that our
21:26intuitions or our common morality can go
21:29off track
21:31but in this book at least what I was
21:33trying to do is uh follow the method of
21:36Aristotle and so I take Aristotle in
21:38many Works to begin with things that he
21:41thinks at least almost everyone will
21:44agree with and I say almost everyone why
21:46well because yes you could get someone
21:47who says look all uh my experiences are
21:51Illusions I'm a brain in a vat I can't
21:53trust my senses at all I mean you could
21:54get someone who has a very very radical
21:56view you could obviously get someone
21:58like Nietzsche or certain kinds of
22:00atheistic existentialists who totally
22:03reject any principles of morality that
22:05they don't give to themselves and giving
22:07yourself the principles of morality at
22:09the end seems to me like no morality at
22:11all because a self-imposed law is also a
22:14law that I can self unimpose right I'm
22:16gonna say well to hell with that I
22:18change my mind or I just don't like that
22:19anymore
22:20so I think you're right I mean I can't
22:22in one book handle all these objections
22:25from uh you know people that are uh
22:27denying the object the existence of any
22:30objective morality or dying the reality
22:32of uh the senses or or Etc
22:36so what I've tried to do is move back as
22:39far as I can and so in this book for
22:42instance that what I do is I start off
22:43with infanticide and I say well look
22:45everybody virtually agrees it's wrong to
22:48kill you know an eight-year-old child
22:49I've never seen any philosopher I've
22:52never seen any uh public intellectual
22:54say well yeah killing my pro-choice view
22:57extends all the way to you know eight
22:59years old and once they're in
23:00kindergarten well that's it no more no
23:02more abortion at that point post birth
23:04abortion goes wrong at kindergarten so
23:07clearly there seems to be some consensus
23:09at least about that and so then I I
23:12begin by looking at okay well when
23:14exactly does that begin so we agree
23:16killing eight-year-olds is wrong how
23:18about killing someone at
23:20two years old and that seems to be where
23:23at least the most strong pro-choice view
23:25ends up Landing so there's a lot of
23:27people like Peter Singer and others who
23:28will say that um post-worth abortion is
23:32uh permissible and even that it ought to
23:35be legally permissible uh and so you
23:38know if that if that view is correct
23:40you'd say the right to life begins at
23:43about two years of age and so in the
23:45book basically I look at okay what
23:46reasons are they giving for this and I
23:48find those reasons uh quite weak I think
23:51they rely ultimately on a view of the
23:53person that Locke put forward and in
23:56Locke's view it wasn't that his view
23:59basically wasn't about which individuals
24:01deserve legal and moral protection but
24:03rather which individuals can be held
24:05legally and morally responsible
24:07and so that's a very different question
24:09right the point at which a human being
24:11can be held legally and morally
24:12responsible the Age of Reason it's just
24:14a totally different question than which
24:16individual humans deserve to be
24:18protected and respected so in any case I
24:21think you're right that in this book I
24:23can't and did not cover uh you know
24:26objections that that would undermine any
24:29common morality at all like objections
24:32that there's you know killing other
24:33people's fines stealing from other
24:35people's fine uh slavery's fine yeah I
24:37mean if someone has that view this book
24:39is is too far down the road to help them
24:41but I would say that at least now in the
24:44almost everyone does in fact accept
24:47common morality and I'd say this almost
24:50everyone uh even if theoretically they
24:53reject common morality and they say oh
24:54and you know I'm I think there's nothing
24:57wrong with killing people if someone
24:58does kill their best friend their mother
25:00uh they actually in fact do react as if
25:05they do accept the the norm that killing
25:06innocent people is wrong so I think
25:08those people tend to be inconsistent
25:11they have a kind of theory there's no
25:12such thing as human rights there's no
25:14such thing as you know objective right
25:16and wrong but in practice again when
25:18someone steals from them when someone
25:19beats them up they don't react as if oh
25:22this is just your taste it's just your
25:23choice nothing wrong with that at all so
25:26I think there's a internal incoherence
25:28in most of those people yeah I was just
25:30gonna just follow up for a second um to
25:32say that uh I thought it was a strength
25:34and I think it's a good move for the
25:36approach of pro-life as we go forward of
25:39taking your approach of not getting
25:41bogged down with people who don't
25:43actually even act in the way that they
25:45say they believe about like pure moral
25:46skepticism but just starting from this
25:49common morality and then working from
25:51regress passing back to that to say hey
25:53this is just the natural if you believe
25:55that you shouldn't be able to kill an
25:57eight-year-old child then there's no
25:59reason that you should believe that you
26:01can kill an infinite so I thought I
26:03thought it was a great I thought it was
26:04a great move on your part to
26:06philosophically just accept those and go
26:08from those and I think it's a way
26:09forward for for the discussion
26:13uh so we have time maybe for one more
26:15question and I just want to follow up on
26:17that particular methodology so I'm
26:18thinking about arguments and and how
26:20arguments go off the rails and
26:22oftentimes you know we have our own
26:24baggage that we're dealing with and
26:25maybe when we're confronted by the
26:27arguments of another we don't want to
26:28admit that there's anything worthwhile
26:31in those arguments because we're just
26:33attached to what it is that we think or
26:35choose
26:37um but that's on the part of our
26:39interlocutor oftentimes it's like
26:41smugness or condescension which ends up
26:43undoing the interaction because we just
26:46feel yeah great rank or an ire and then
26:48we have no real desire to make a genuine
26:50Exchange and so you have a way uh in
26:54your pros of like very very
26:56straightforward and like Charming
26:57discourse so like there's not a there's
26:59not a hint of condescension or smugness
27:00which is incredible and as I was reading
27:02it I was thinking that like this kind of
27:04regressive model the father Bond of
27:05Interest describing or the way in which
27:07you just kind of mapped it it's it's
27:08almost pedagogical
27:10um like like you have you know the
27:11skills of a teacher and so as you go
27:13from infanticide like maybe it's based
27:16off self-conceptuality or maybe it's
27:17based off dot dot dot and then as you go
27:19through different criteria for birth and
27:22then different criteria for whatever it
27:24is or like quickening or heartbeat or
27:26Dot and as you regress you're you're
27:28taking your reader by the hand and
27:30walking him or her through a kind of
27:32series of judgments so maybe I don't
27:34know just uh as a final word on
27:36argumentation and the way in which it's
27:37pedagogical and the way in which we can
27:39kind of grow in our capacity to engage
27:41in arguments what are your what are your
27:43thoughts about that
27:44well I think Aquinas for me is a real
27:46guide in this in that uh he says that we
27:50need to appeal in part to authorities
27:52that are interlocutors except so if
27:55we're all Catholic then and let's say
27:58we're all Catholics who accept the
27:59authority of the magisterium then to
28:01appeal to the magisterium is something
28:03that works in an argument if someone is
28:06uh discussing a Catholic discussing
28:08things with a Protestant well the magic
28:10stream is not really going to be a very
28:11operative Authority there for that
28:13person and likewise if you have a Jewish
28:17person well then appealing to the gospel
28:18is not really going to get much traction
28:20so I think you have to appeal to what
28:22the interlocutor is going to find
28:25persuasive and so in this abortion
28:29debate uh what I try to do in the book
28:31is make no appeal at all
28:33to theology to the Bible to religious
28:36Faith to the teachings of the church
28:38none of that is it seems to me helpful
28:41if you're discussing the issue of
28:43abortion for instance with an atheist so
28:45what I've tried to do is start
28:47um not at the very beginning not start
28:48at you know well why be ethical at all
28:50or what are the ultimate principles of
28:51morality but to start at the place where
28:54I think many secular people begin with
28:56that almost all secular people
28:59believe in human rights right I mean if
29:01you ask 99 of people in our society do
29:03you think there are basic human rights
29:05they say yes of course
29:06and then if you begin with that premise
29:09you say okay great every single human
29:11being then has basic human rights
29:13including the right to live yeah yeah
29:16okay I can sign on to that and say okay
29:18well let's look at the evidence about
29:19the uh individual in question in the
29:22case of infanticide and abortion what is
29:25the evidence that this individual is
29:27living
29:28well this individual can die
29:31and only things that are living can die
29:33and this individual is growing this
29:36individual is assimilating nutrition so
29:38all available scientific evidence points
29:40to the idea that this is a living
29:42individual okay great well is this
29:45living individual a human being or is
29:49this living individual the member of
29:50some other species a dolphin a cat a
29:53tree Etc and again I would say most
29:56people accept science and science shows
29:58very clearly this individual is brought
30:01about by two a male human being and a
30:04female human being doing reproductive
30:06acts so if a man and a woman do
30:08reproductive acts the only possible
30:10thing that they can reproduce is a human
30:13being they cannot reproduce a dolphin a
30:15tree a giraffe any other kind of living
30:18human being or any other kind of living
30:19being if you look at this individual
30:22this living individual it has human
30:24tissue it has human DNA so all available
30:26scientific evidence points to this being
30:28a human being it can't be any other
30:31species
30:32so if the interlocutor accepts the
30:35principle that all human beings have
30:38basic human rights and then they accept
30:40the scientific findings that this is a
30:42living individual human being
30:44well then it seems to follow that this
30:46is a individual that has basic human
30:49rights so this argument as you can tell
30:51is not appealing to scripture or to the
30:54magisterium or to the pope or to
30:56anything like that it's appealing to
30:58things that not everyone but almost
31:00everyone in our society already accepts
31:03the principle that all human beings have
31:06basic human rights and then the
31:08principle that science can tell us
31:09something about what individuals are
31:11living and what individuals are not
31:12living and what individuals are members
31:14of the human species and what
31:16individuals are not members of the human
31:18species so I'm trying to appeal to
31:19things that again not every single
31:21person would agree with but people of
31:23Good Will in our society I think 99.9 of
31:26people in our society really would agree
31:28with
31:29boom all right well thanks for writing
31:32the book thanks for revising it twice uh
31:34for our listeners who are interested we
31:35just say a word about uh where they can
31:37find it
31:38uh sure they can find the book uh it's
31:40published by Routledge so they can go
31:42there they can go to Amazon and find it
31:45uh they can find it I think I hope where
31:48good books are sold so yeah I think they
31:50can find it in lots of different places
31:52and I and I hope it's useful for people
31:55great well thanks so much thanks again
31:57thanks for taking the time uh turning
31:59now to our listeners thanks again and as
32:01always for listening to God's planning
32:03please follow us on Facebook Twitter
32:05Instagram and Tick Tock like the episode
32:07subscribe on YouTube or your podcast app
32:10leave a five star review all of which
32:12helps especially you know for a timely
32:13thing like this super uh super helpful
32:15just kind of get the word out when
32:17people are thinking about it if you'd
32:19like to donate to the podcast through
32:20patreon follow the link in the
32:22description or the show notes and in
32:24those same description and or show notes
32:26you'll find links to merchandise at
32:29godsblending.org and to updates on
32:32upcoming events so we'll have our first
32:34Retreat announcement at the beginning of
32:35March so you can start getting excited
32:37for that now and more Retreat
32:39announcements to follow all right no of
32:41our prayers for you please pray for us
32:42and we'll look forward to chatting with
32:43you next time on God's plan
32:45[Music]

About this transcript

This page contains the full transcript of Guestsplaining 041: Arguing Abortion with Dr. Christopher Kaczor by Godsplaining | Catholic Podcast, generated from the public captions YouTube serves with the video. The transcript has 6,456 words across 920 segments, with the original timestamps preserved so you can click any line to jump to that moment in the embedded player.

What you can do with it

Use the transcript to take notes, quote the speaker, build a study guide, generate a summary with ChatGPT or Claude via the YouTube Summary tool, or export it as a timed subtitle file with YouTube to SRT. You can also re-open it in the transcriber to translate the transcript into 100+ languages.

Free YouTube transcript tool

YouTube2Text is a free YouTube transcript generator — no signup, no daily limit. Paste any YouTube link and get the full transcript instantly, with timestamps, click-to-jump, translation to 100+ languages, AI prompts for ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini, and exports to TXT, SRT, VTT, or Markdown.